I have just read an article written by Farish A. Noor which bears the title
"We do not own, nor are we owned by history"
(http://www.othermalaysia.org/content/view/105/1/)
This article could serve as a good wake up call for those who have had a 'nostalgia of past glory' and become too obsessed with it.
Dr Farish notices that people of different ethnicities and religions always being 'brainwashed' since young to embrace the "greatness" of their ancestors and civilizationsas if 'somehow the accumulated credit for human labour can be passed down from one generation to another like capital gaining interest in the bank'. At the same time, he cynically points out that the same group of people who "have no problems whatsoever taking credit for what was done ancestors hundreds of years ago" miraculously, as if they are being affected by some sort of selective amnesia, "would not want to take responsibility for the mistakes and outrages committed by their very same ancestors long ago".
Also, Dr Farish has, though indirectly, pointed out that people today, no matter she's a Chinese, European, Indian, Arabian or Malay has been living (on average) a much better life than her ancestors who allegedly lived in 'the age of glory'. From the economic perspective, this couldn't be more true. Before 19th century, no country in the world has ever achieved a GDP per capita higher than USD 1 200. But today, a country with GDP per capita of USD 1 200 is considered 'relatively poor', and some countries like Luxomberg has GDP per capita as high as USD 70 000. But still, many people (I must admit, at one time in my life, I was one of the herd) seem to be too fond of the 'past glory' that they choose to overlook this fact. As Dr Farish aptly put it:
"Furthermore it is almost comical to note how this recourse to nostalgia often harps back on the achievements of singular individuals who may not have acted with the interests of others or posterity in mind. Muslim apologists talk about the greatness of Muslim Sultans and Emperors, oblivious to the fact that if they were living in the days of the great Muslim empires of the past they would probably be playing the lowly role of serfs and peasants, to be stepped on and exploited by the very same Great Sultans they so admire today. Likewise apologists for China’s great imperial past forget that the greatness of China was meant primarily for the Emperor and the ruling elite, and not for the ordinary Chinese masses: Some may look to the Forbidden Palace in Peking as proof of China’s past grandeur, but the Forbidden Palace was precisely that – an elite enclave that was forbidden to millions of ordinary Chinese. The same applies for the great temples, forts and castles of the Christian West and Hindu India. So why this love of great rulers and greatness in general?"
Finally, I think Dr Farish's profound insight can readily be extended to other 'orthodox establishments' like 'tradition' and 'nationalism'. All these are sobering and perhaps even provocative and radical to some, enough for many people to chew on for a long time.
Sunday, August 19, 2007
Saturday, May 26, 2007
Quotes of Winston Churchill
Winston Chuchill, one of the political figures that I admire most. A great man with a great sense of humour in my opinion. He got many witty remarks, below are some of those which I like very much:
"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."
"You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life."
"There is no such thing as public opinion. There is only published opinion."
"Study history, study history. In history lies all the secrets of statecraft."
"Some people regard private enterprise as a predatory tiger to be shot. Others look on it as a cow they can milk. Not enough people see it as a healthy horse, pulling a sturdy wagon."
"To improve is to change; to be perfect is to change often."
"Politics is almost as exciting as war, and quite as dangerous. In war you can only be killed once, but in politics many times."
"Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts."
"We make a living by what we get, but we make a life by what we give."
"To build may have to be the slow and laborious task of years. To destroy can be the thoughtless act of a single day."
"He has all of the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."
"Politics is the ability to foretell what is going to happen tomorrow, next week, next month and next year. And to have the ability afterwards to explain why it didn't happen."
"Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen."
"I am prepared to meet my Maker. Whether my Maker is prepared for the great ordeal of meeting me is another matter."
"Dictators ride to and fro upon tigers which they dare not dismount. And the tigers are getting hungry."
"A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty."
"I am an optimist. It does not seem too much use being anything else."
"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."
"You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life."
"There is no such thing as public opinion. There is only published opinion."
"Study history, study history. In history lies all the secrets of statecraft."
"Some people regard private enterprise as a predatory tiger to be shot. Others look on it as a cow they can milk. Not enough people see it as a healthy horse, pulling a sturdy wagon."
"To improve is to change; to be perfect is to change often."
"Politics is almost as exciting as war, and quite as dangerous. In war you can only be killed once, but in politics many times."
"Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts."
"We make a living by what we get, but we make a life by what we give."
"To build may have to be the slow and laborious task of years. To destroy can be the thoughtless act of a single day."
"He has all of the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."
"Politics is the ability to foretell what is going to happen tomorrow, next week, next month and next year. And to have the ability afterwards to explain why it didn't happen."
"Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen."
"I am prepared to meet my Maker. Whether my Maker is prepared for the great ordeal of meeting me is another matter."
"Dictators ride to and fro upon tigers which they dare not dismount. And the tigers are getting hungry."
"A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty."
"I am an optimist. It does not seem too much use being anything else."
Friday, May 25, 2007
Quote of the week--The Tyranny Of "Fairness"
In some intellectual circles the desirability of equality of outcome has become an article of religious faith: everyone should finish the race at the same time. As the Dodo said in Alice in Wonderland, "Everybody has won, and all must have prizes.".....
if what people get is determined by "fairness" and not by what they produce, where are the "prizes" to come from? What incentive is there to work and produce? How is it to be decided who is to be the doctor, who the lawyer, who the garbage collector, who the street sweeper? What assures that people will accept the roles assigned to them and perform those roles in accordance with their abilities? Clearly, only force or the threat of force will do. -------- Milton Friedman in his book "Free To Choose"
if what people get is determined by "fairness" and not by what they produce, where are the "prizes" to come from? What incentive is there to work and produce? How is it to be decided who is to be the doctor, who the lawyer, who the garbage collector, who the street sweeper? What assures that people will accept the roles assigned to them and perform those roles in accordance with their abilities? Clearly, only force or the threat of force will do. -------- Milton Friedman in his book "Free To Choose"
Comparative Advantage And Gender Roles
The term comparative advantage was first suggested by economist David Ricardo. According to him, a country should always concentrate on producing what it's best at producing, at the same time it should import the other commodities from countries which have comparative advantage at manufacturing those goods.
Ricardo argued that, even if a country could produce everything more efficiently than other countries, it would reap profit from specializing in what it's best at manufacturing and trading it in exchange of other commodities. Hence, comparative advantage shouldn't be viewed as something absolute. To further illustrate my point, consider the US and Vietnam and their abilities to produce two types of good : airplanes and televisions. US could definitely produce both types of good with better quality than Vietnam, but Vietnam's ability to produce television is better than that of producing airplanes, as a result, the US shall let Vietnam produce televisions and US should concentrate on producing airplanes, in that way, both country could profit from trading televisions and airplanes with each other.
Even though comparative advantage is an economic terminology, we could see that it also applies to gender roles in human society. Women today undoubtedly enjoy a lot more freedom than their counterparts who lived just a few decades ago. Basically, apart from a handful of countries, most of the legal systems in the world grant equal rights to both genders.
But, despite the fact that women nowadays are endowed (at least legally) with the same amount of choices in all aspects of their lives as men, why many women still choose to assume their traditional role as housewives, the "rice making maid" (as in cantonese) for their husbands ? Why many women still prefer making-up than building careers ?
One common point of view is that the male dominant society has way too many invisible constraints and unforeseeable pitfalls that they left women with few choices. Another popular view is that men as the breadwinners of their families has become the norm of our societies, so why should a woman subject herself to much hardship if she could "delegate" the job to her husband?While both point of views have their own credits, it would be presumptuos if one thinks that a woman choose not to work simply because she thinks working is too hard. Many women choose to be a housewife because their families need a keeper, a guardian; and their children need a caring mother who take care of them wholeheartedly.
If we consider it from the Ricardian perspective of comparative advantage, since men generally do a better job in securing financial resources than rearing kids and home keeping, so unless their wives could do an even better job at earning money, it would be wise to concentrate on their career, while letting their wives to look after their children and homes. In that way, it benefits the whole family the most. Hence, choosing to become a housewife does indeed prove to be a wise choice for a lot of women.
Similarly, many women give priority in making-up because that's the best they can do (in attracting the opposite sex): you don't have to be a genius to realize that a beautiful girl has a better chance to attract more affluent and wealthy potential spouses. On the other hand, since women have chosen to concentrate on their presentability, then men will have to opt for building up financial strengths. The result, both parties will reap the most benefits.
Whether this is a result of natural selection or a deeply-rooted custom is not important. The fact is, the comparative advantage of gender roles has existed in that way instead of the other way around, and most of us are just trying to follow the rules, and passing them to our future generations.
Ricardo argued that, even if a country could produce everything more efficiently than other countries, it would reap profit from specializing in what it's best at manufacturing and trading it in exchange of other commodities. Hence, comparative advantage shouldn't be viewed as something absolute. To further illustrate my point, consider the US and Vietnam and their abilities to produce two types of good : airplanes and televisions. US could definitely produce both types of good with better quality than Vietnam, but Vietnam's ability to produce television is better than that of producing airplanes, as a result, the US shall let Vietnam produce televisions and US should concentrate on producing airplanes, in that way, both country could profit from trading televisions and airplanes with each other.
Even though comparative advantage is an economic terminology, we could see that it also applies to gender roles in human society. Women today undoubtedly enjoy a lot more freedom than their counterparts who lived just a few decades ago. Basically, apart from a handful of countries, most of the legal systems in the world grant equal rights to both genders.
But, despite the fact that women nowadays are endowed (at least legally) with the same amount of choices in all aspects of their lives as men, why many women still choose to assume their traditional role as housewives, the "rice making maid" (as in cantonese) for their husbands ? Why many women still prefer making-up than building careers ?
One common point of view is that the male dominant society has way too many invisible constraints and unforeseeable pitfalls that they left women with few choices. Another popular view is that men as the breadwinners of their families has become the norm of our societies, so why should a woman subject herself to much hardship if she could "delegate" the job to her husband?While both point of views have their own credits, it would be presumptuos if one thinks that a woman choose not to work simply because she thinks working is too hard. Many women choose to be a housewife because their families need a keeper, a guardian; and their children need a caring mother who take care of them wholeheartedly.
If we consider it from the Ricardian perspective of comparative advantage, since men generally do a better job in securing financial resources than rearing kids and home keeping, so unless their wives could do an even better job at earning money, it would be wise to concentrate on their career, while letting their wives to look after their children and homes. In that way, it benefits the whole family the most. Hence, choosing to become a housewife does indeed prove to be a wise choice for a lot of women.
Similarly, many women give priority in making-up because that's the best they can do (in attracting the opposite sex): you don't have to be a genius to realize that a beautiful girl has a better chance to attract more affluent and wealthy potential spouses. On the other hand, since women have chosen to concentrate on their presentability, then men will have to opt for building up financial strengths. The result, both parties will reap the most benefits.
Whether this is a result of natural selection or a deeply-rooted custom is not important. The fact is, the comparative advantage of gender roles has existed in that way instead of the other way around, and most of us are just trying to follow the rules, and passing them to our future generations.
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Sunday, May 06, 2007
Alien Civilization, Yet Another Perspective
My friend Michelle has offered some points of view of hers regarding alien civilization especially on energy requirement (for space faring) and alien mindset. She also warns of the risk of anthropomorphism and having assumed too much on how (intelligent) aliens would think.
I have to admit that these are indeed very tricky topics and at first look, it may seem that anything is possible. But with the help of some scientific facts and theories, we could rule out quite a number of possibilities.
First of all, on space crafts which can be refueled midway. This is possible, given that the aliens know for sure they could find fuel for their space crafts in another star system. For example, if they are using fusion energy to power their ships, then they could probably harvest hydrogen from any star they come across.
On the compositions of planets. True enough, life supporting planets in other star system would not be exactly the same as planet earth. In fact, it’s pretty safe to say that the probability of coming across a planet in other star system which has exactly the same size and same composition as the earth is practically zero. At the same time, it’s also pretty safe to say that the chances of finding a planet abound with elements that couldn’t be found in our solar system is next to zero, if not zero at all. To see this point, one has to understand how all the elements (hydrogen, oxygen, iron, uranium, you name it) in the universe are created. Simply put, the universe only has hydrogen in the beginning, then burning stars fuse the nuclei of hydrogen into heavier elements, the energy released through fusion will support a star from collapsing under its own weight. But not all fusions release energy, when a massive star starts making iron in its core, energy is drawn from the star because making any element heavier than iron requires energy. Subsequently, the star no longer has the energy to support its weight and it will undergo gravitational collapse, the result is one huge spectacular supernova explosion which releases more than 10^40 Joule---about the same amount of energy released by all the stars combined in one single galaxy. During the explosion, heavier- than-iron elements (like gold, silver, iridium, uranium etc) are created, but compared to lighter-than-iron elements, they are rare. Later, all the elements will spread across the galaxy and become the ingredients of new star systems and their planets. That is why every star system will have more or less the same composition, hydrogen, helium, carbon, oxygen, silicon, nitrogen and their compounds. So, even though I am certain there are yet more (heavy) elements to be added to our periodic table, but they could only be synthesized in labs. No natural process known could produce them, even one as intense as supernova.
On the efficiency of fuels. Einstein’s famous equation E= mc^2 asserts that there is a limit to the amount of energy released per unit mass. For 1 Kg of fuel, the limit would be about 9 x 10^16 Joule. But of course from the second law of thermodynamics, we know that we can not transform heat into work with 100% efficiency. On the other hand, just like anyone with some knowledge in chemistry wouldn’t believe that one could simply turn water into petroleum, anyone with some knowledge in physics wouldn’t believe that there’s a chemical process which releases more heat per unit mass than nuclear fusion. Chemical processes only involve sharing of electron between ionized atoms, whereas nuclear fusions involve the union of nuclei to form new elements. You couldn’t even put them on the same scale.
On alien society. This is perhaps the trickiest part. Like what Michelle said, anyone who’s trying make a guess on alien mindsets is subject to the risk of anthropomorphisms. But thinking that intelligent aliens would form tribes and nation states isn’t anthropomorphism, it’s natural selection. We see animals which hunt in groups or packs, occupy territories, chasing away intruders. The purpose of all these is to secure resources. Hence forming tribes and nation states isn't really something unique to human. On the other hand, aliens need energy as well, just like any other living thing in the universe, so it’s prudent to assume that they too need to secure resources, hence they will need to form tribes or nation states as well. Of course, my arguments are based on the assumption that they face intense competition, but without intense competition for resources, I wonder if any species would eventually develop the brain power needed to propel them into the age of civilizations.
I have to admit that these are indeed very tricky topics and at first look, it may seem that anything is possible. But with the help of some scientific facts and theories, we could rule out quite a number of possibilities.
First of all, on space crafts which can be refueled midway. This is possible, given that the aliens know for sure they could find fuel for their space crafts in another star system. For example, if they are using fusion energy to power their ships, then they could probably harvest hydrogen from any star they come across.
On the compositions of planets. True enough, life supporting planets in other star system would not be exactly the same as planet earth. In fact, it’s pretty safe to say that the probability of coming across a planet in other star system which has exactly the same size and same composition as the earth is practically zero. At the same time, it’s also pretty safe to say that the chances of finding a planet abound with elements that couldn’t be found in our solar system is next to zero, if not zero at all. To see this point, one has to understand how all the elements (hydrogen, oxygen, iron, uranium, you name it) in the universe are created. Simply put, the universe only has hydrogen in the beginning, then burning stars fuse the nuclei of hydrogen into heavier elements, the energy released through fusion will support a star from collapsing under its own weight. But not all fusions release energy, when a massive star starts making iron in its core, energy is drawn from the star because making any element heavier than iron requires energy. Subsequently, the star no longer has the energy to support its weight and it will undergo gravitational collapse, the result is one huge spectacular supernova explosion which releases more than 10^40 Joule---about the same amount of energy released by all the stars combined in one single galaxy. During the explosion, heavier- than-iron elements (like gold, silver, iridium, uranium etc) are created, but compared to lighter-than-iron elements, they are rare. Later, all the elements will spread across the galaxy and become the ingredients of new star systems and their planets. That is why every star system will have more or less the same composition, hydrogen, helium, carbon, oxygen, silicon, nitrogen and their compounds. So, even though I am certain there are yet more (heavy) elements to be added to our periodic table, but they could only be synthesized in labs. No natural process known could produce them, even one as intense as supernova.
On the efficiency of fuels. Einstein’s famous equation E= mc^2 asserts that there is a limit to the amount of energy released per unit mass. For 1 Kg of fuel, the limit would be about 9 x 10^16 Joule. But of course from the second law of thermodynamics, we know that we can not transform heat into work with 100% efficiency. On the other hand, just like anyone with some knowledge in chemistry wouldn’t believe that one could simply turn water into petroleum, anyone with some knowledge in physics wouldn’t believe that there’s a chemical process which releases more heat per unit mass than nuclear fusion. Chemical processes only involve sharing of electron between ionized atoms, whereas nuclear fusions involve the union of nuclei to form new elements. You couldn’t even put them on the same scale.
On alien society. This is perhaps the trickiest part. Like what Michelle said, anyone who’s trying make a guess on alien mindsets is subject to the risk of anthropomorphisms. But thinking that intelligent aliens would form tribes and nation states isn’t anthropomorphism, it’s natural selection. We see animals which hunt in groups or packs, occupy territories, chasing away intruders. The purpose of all these is to secure resources. Hence forming tribes and nation states isn't really something unique to human. On the other hand, aliens need energy as well, just like any other living thing in the universe, so it’s prudent to assume that they too need to secure resources, hence they will need to form tribes or nation states as well. Of course, my arguments are based on the assumption that they face intense competition, but without intense competition for resources, I wonder if any species would eventually develop the brain power needed to propel them into the age of civilizations.
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
Quote of the week
As a result of the burning of coal and oil, the driving of cars, and other human activities, the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing at a rate of about half a percent per year. … The physical effects of carbon dioxide are seen in changes of rainfall, cloudiness, wind strength, and temperature, which are customarily lumped together in the misleading phrase "global warming." This phrase is misleading because the warming caused by the greenhouse effect of increased carbon dioxide is not evenly distributed. In humid air, the effect of carbon dioxide on the transport of heat by radiation is less important, because it is outweighed by the much larger greenhouse effect of water vapor. The effect of carbon dioxide is more important where the air is dry, and air is usually dry only where it is cold. The warming mainly occurs where air is cold and dry, mainly in the arctic rather than in the tropics, mainly in winter rather than in summer, and mainly at night rather than in daytime. The warming is real, but it is mostly making cold places warmer rather than making hot places hotter. To represent this local warming by a global average is misleading, because the global average is only a fraction of a degree while the local warming at high latitudes is much larger.-------Freeman Dyson
Alien Civilization, Another Perspective (By Michelle Wong)
1)Energy requirement. I think as for the energy harvesting point of view, let's may be assuming it in this way. Driving your car to Singapore will take 3 full tanks of petrol. So since you can't drive all the way to Singapore with 1 full tank, you would have at least stop twice to refill. Then, can the same analogy can be applied here?
And the second suggestion would be that we need a lot of petrol/coal/natural gas or whatever energy supplier to generate 10^13 Watt because these listed supplier above is producing only so much energy per unit mass. But what if the alien is using different material which generate 10 millions time of energy for the same unit mass? That planet might not be the exactly the same planet as we have now, not only in terms of composition of matter but could be also the different matters (and I wonder is the chemistry periodic table is fixed and no more additions or expansions?).
2) The mindset of alien civilization. This is very interesting to actually think it in hypothetical way, if I am about to dream of the Utopian society :P But putting that aside, I would have to ask myself the few obvious question. What is their motivation to explore the universe? The reason I ask myself this question is that since you suggested that a LOT of energy is required, they must be looking for something before investing such enormous amount of energy! (of course, we presume that They think humanly like us *cost-benefit analysis*, which might not be true as I will ask later). Since you had proposed that it could be due to escape from genocide/warring/conflict, should we be worried about if our planet is habitable to them, or they will just pass by? :P
I read this somewhere about the question: if 2 different species of animal meeting up together for the first time in their lives, for example like Galapagos tortoise vs Orang Utan, what would be the reaction. They said that the observation made often than not is actually neutralism, instead of jumping straight to fighting. Of course, they said it based on evolutionary psychology (I think it is in George Miller's The Mating Mind). Now, the trick question is, will human-alien relationship be something like neutralism or fighting over reproduction/survivality?
Another interesting point: what makes these aliens so great in producing such advanced technology to be able to travelled to this space. We might think they must have such high intelligence, philosophical undertakings (if they manage to be so peaceful and have no conflict at all), or supreme collectivist mindset (you know, just be collective, like the ants in the hive), and so on. But take a step backward: put yourself into the ant shoes and have a look at human being. If you look at human from the eyes of ant, you would be wondering what makes them travel so fast, or you as a fish, wow, human being actually floating on the water at one moment and sinking into water next and so forth. At the end, actually we are comparing it in a very different realms: one being ant/fish, and another one would be human being. Why I brought this up? I would think that if there is any alien to be met in the future, let's not presume too much on why or how they become where they are from the very human perspective, i think some call this anthropomorphism.
And coming to your last point: how good we could reconcile with others in ensuring our survivality, i think a lot of philosophers/great thinkers have expounded heavily on this subject by understanding human nature and the prospects of it. There is only 2 points coming to me at this moment: Hegel said "What experience and history teach is this — that nations and governments have never learned anything from history, or acted upon any lessons they might have drawn from it." and resources will become scarcer and rarer, and may be we are bound for collision, 2 persons wanting the same thing. But what resources or at what rate, I have no idea ;)
And the second suggestion would be that we need a lot of petrol/coal/natural gas or whatever energy supplier to generate 10^13 Watt because these listed supplier above is producing only so much energy per unit mass. But what if the alien is using different material which generate 10 millions time of energy for the same unit mass? That planet might not be the exactly the same planet as we have now, not only in terms of composition of matter but could be also the different matters (and I wonder is the chemistry periodic table is fixed and no more additions or expansions?).
2) The mindset of alien civilization. This is very interesting to actually think it in hypothetical way, if I am about to dream of the Utopian society :P But putting that aside, I would have to ask myself the few obvious question. What is their motivation to explore the universe? The reason I ask myself this question is that since you suggested that a LOT of energy is required, they must be looking for something before investing such enormous amount of energy! (of course, we presume that They think humanly like us *cost-benefit analysis*, which might not be true as I will ask later). Since you had proposed that it could be due to escape from genocide/warring/conflict, should we be worried about if our planet is habitable to them, or they will just pass by? :P
I read this somewhere about the question: if 2 different species of animal meeting up together for the first time in their lives, for example like Galapagos tortoise vs Orang Utan, what would be the reaction. They said that the observation made often than not is actually neutralism, instead of jumping straight to fighting. Of course, they said it based on evolutionary psychology (I think it is in George Miller's The Mating Mind). Now, the trick question is, will human-alien relationship be something like neutralism or fighting over reproduction/survivality?
Another interesting point: what makes these aliens so great in producing such advanced technology to be able to travelled to this space. We might think they must have such high intelligence, philosophical undertakings (if they manage to be so peaceful and have no conflict at all), or supreme collectivist mindset (you know, just be collective, like the ants in the hive), and so on. But take a step backward: put yourself into the ant shoes and have a look at human being. If you look at human from the eyes of ant, you would be wondering what makes them travel so fast, or you as a fish, wow, human being actually floating on the water at one moment and sinking into water next and so forth. At the end, actually we are comparing it in a very different realms: one being ant/fish, and another one would be human being. Why I brought this up? I would think that if there is any alien to be met in the future, let's not presume too much on why or how they become where they are from the very human perspective, i think some call this anthropomorphism.
And coming to your last point: how good we could reconcile with others in ensuring our survivality, i think a lot of philosophers/great thinkers have expounded heavily on this subject by understanding human nature and the prospects of it. There is only 2 points coming to me at this moment: Hegel said "What experience and history teach is this — that nations and governments have never learned anything from history, or acted upon any lessons they might have drawn from it." and resources will become scarcer and rarer, and may be we are bound for collision, 2 persons wanting the same thing. But what resources or at what rate, I have no idea ;)
Sunday, April 29, 2007
Alien Civilization, A perspective.
When showing for the first time a couple of years ago, the movie Independence Day sure had captured the heart of millions of people with its thrilling plot and stunning computer graphic effects. It’s a movie stuffed with alien spacecrafts and actions, so to speak. After such a long time, the exhilaration should have all lost in the void that embeds planet earth. But one question lingers: how likely is an advance alien civilization visiting earth to be combative in nature, eager to fight and conquer anything that stands in the paths of their spaceships? My guess is, we are not likely to come across an alien civilization bound on conquest and annihilation.
Let’s look at some facts first; manned space travel is no ordinary feat, at least in our terms. The vast amount of resources, energy, and technology needed to build a spaceship, to cater for people (I mean aliens) who travel with it, to avoid any potential danger, to power it and the time needed to traverse celestial distances is simply unimaginable to any of us. It may sound ignominious, but our current scientific knowledge and technology is so limited that we cannot even overcome the technical difficulties at theoretical level. The sheer amount of cost spent just to escape the confines of our home planet is a testimony of our primitiveness.
In 1964, astronomer Nikolai Kardashev proposed a general method to classify how technologically advanced a civilization is by measuring (I shall omit all the technicalities here) the total amount of energy a civilization could utilize. By the Kardashev scale, a type I civilization is able to harness all the power available on a planet. A type II civilization is able to harness all the power available from a star and finally a type III civilization would be able to harness all the power of a galaxy, which, in the case of our galaxy, the Milky Way, equals to about 10^36 Watt (1 followed by 36 zeroes). Currently, our civilization is a type 0.7, which consumes 10^13 (10 trillion) Watt. By extrapolation, it’s estimated that the earth will reach type I sometime around 23rd century.
Naturally, an alien who comes knocking at our doors must have belonged to at least a type II civilization and as a corollary of that, they must at least be several millennia ahead of us in terms of science and technology. At the same time, one should always keep in mind that despite how advance our alien friends might be, there must have been a time when their ancestors were living a savage lifestyle, much like how our ancestors lived theirs dozens of millennia ago. And as a life form, they need energy to keep things going around. In order to secure access to certain resources, some sort of nation states could have been formed to protect them from others.
There have been many occasions, whether on TVs, books or games which feature aggressive and combative alien races, yet these alien races have somehow managed to rally themselves under a single planetary government. Given their combativeness, it makes one wonders how they could reconcile with one another in the very first place! My point is, throughout the course of history, an alien civilization which is combative in nature would have fought so many wars with one another that they are likely to have destroyed themselves before they even have a chance to colonize other planets. Even if they managed to escape the fate of self-annihilation, constant wars and conflicts would have hindered progress significantly if not totally. In addition, unless they learn how to live with each other peacefully, more wars will eventually break out. The more advance the civilization becomes, the more deadly the weapons deployed and the direr the consequences will be.
On the other hand, civilizations which have come to realize the importance of sharing resources and working together would have a better chance to become a space faring species. Not only due to the fact that they could avoid any potentially devastating conflict, but cooperation would have allowed them to do just about anything more efficiently, from scientific researches to dealing with planetary issues.
As a conclusion, instead of worrying about being exterminated by some alien civilizations, we should instead worry about ourselves. Whether we will become a space faring species in the next few millennia or we will destroy ourselves would largely depend on how good we could reconcile with each other, and how willing we are to set aside all our differences and work together for the sake of our children.
Let’s look at some facts first; manned space travel is no ordinary feat, at least in our terms. The vast amount of resources, energy, and technology needed to build a spaceship, to cater for people (I mean aliens) who travel with it, to avoid any potential danger, to power it and the time needed to traverse celestial distances is simply unimaginable to any of us. It may sound ignominious, but our current scientific knowledge and technology is so limited that we cannot even overcome the technical difficulties at theoretical level. The sheer amount of cost spent just to escape the confines of our home planet is a testimony of our primitiveness.
In 1964, astronomer Nikolai Kardashev proposed a general method to classify how technologically advanced a civilization is by measuring (I shall omit all the technicalities here) the total amount of energy a civilization could utilize. By the Kardashev scale, a type I civilization is able to harness all the power available on a planet. A type II civilization is able to harness all the power available from a star and finally a type III civilization would be able to harness all the power of a galaxy, which, in the case of our galaxy, the Milky Way, equals to about 10^36 Watt (1 followed by 36 zeroes). Currently, our civilization is a type 0.7, which consumes 10^13 (10 trillion) Watt. By extrapolation, it’s estimated that the earth will reach type I sometime around 23rd century.
Naturally, an alien who comes knocking at our doors must have belonged to at least a type II civilization and as a corollary of that, they must at least be several millennia ahead of us in terms of science and technology. At the same time, one should always keep in mind that despite how advance our alien friends might be, there must have been a time when their ancestors were living a savage lifestyle, much like how our ancestors lived theirs dozens of millennia ago. And as a life form, they need energy to keep things going around. In order to secure access to certain resources, some sort of nation states could have been formed to protect them from others.
There have been many occasions, whether on TVs, books or games which feature aggressive and combative alien races, yet these alien races have somehow managed to rally themselves under a single planetary government. Given their combativeness, it makes one wonders how they could reconcile with one another in the very first place! My point is, throughout the course of history, an alien civilization which is combative in nature would have fought so many wars with one another that they are likely to have destroyed themselves before they even have a chance to colonize other planets. Even if they managed to escape the fate of self-annihilation, constant wars and conflicts would have hindered progress significantly if not totally. In addition, unless they learn how to live with each other peacefully, more wars will eventually break out. The more advance the civilization becomes, the more deadly the weapons deployed and the direr the consequences will be.
On the other hand, civilizations which have come to realize the importance of sharing resources and working together would have a better chance to become a space faring species. Not only due to the fact that they could avoid any potentially devastating conflict, but cooperation would have allowed them to do just about anything more efficiently, from scientific researches to dealing with planetary issues.
As a conclusion, instead of worrying about being exterminated by some alien civilizations, we should instead worry about ourselves. Whether we will become a space faring species in the next few millennia or we will destroy ourselves would largely depend on how good we could reconcile with each other, and how willing we are to set aside all our differences and work together for the sake of our children.
Saturday, March 17, 2007
Wednesday, March 07, 2007
哀悼母亲
2月25日星期日下午五点，妈妈走了。这对我们来说，是个晴天霹雳。一切发生得太突然，就在一个礼拜前，她还好好的，那时正好是初一，妈为我们煮了很多东西，还和我们一起去拜年。看到妈的身体躺着，已经不能再动了，我弟弟问我，我们是不是在做梦？其实我也问过我自己同样的问题。即使到了现在，我还是觉得像做了一场恶梦。
我妈妈是一位尽责的母亲，全职的家庭主妇。她总是在她能力范围内对我们照料周全。她几乎豪无例外的每天早上7，8点就起床，然后就去买菜，做饭，洗衣服，整理衣橱。这些工作看起来似乎都很琐碎，但是做起来并不容易。妈过世后我开始为我自己整理衣橱，发现这是一件烦闷的工作，我在想，即使是整理自己的衣服，也
会觉得烦闷，我妈可以几十年如一日的为我们做家务，为我们学业，事业甚至爱情操心，无怨无悔，完全出自她对我们爱心和责任感。稍微缺乏爱心和责任感，是做不来的。
我妈是一位聪明和敏感的人，对人情世故有相当深入的了解。在这一点上，我觉得我多少受了她的影响。我不开心或生气时，她往往可以看得出来，然后就问我，“孩子，发生什么事了，为什么你好像有点不高兴？”她总是可以从人家表面上的言谈猜测出别人想些什么，我从她那儿学到了很多宝贵的智慧。无论如何，敏锐的触觉也为她带来了烦恼和伤害。有时候她会考虑过多，有时也会因为过于敏感而变得多疑。
“你妈是一位好人。”很多亲友都感慨地对我们这么说。事实上也是如此。我妈生前曾经照顾和帮助过很多她并没有义务去照顾和帮助的人。虽然，有时候是出于无奈，而她也常会对我抱怨说她总是需要料理太多的人，然而，这一切都止于抱怨而已。在行动上她还是继续为他们提供帮助。我妈也是一位恩怨分明的人。记得有一次她和我其中一位姑姑产生一些误会，有一段日子没讲话。有一次姑姑来我家，我忘了和她打招呼。过后妈就对我说，“腾，我和你姑姑口角是我们的事情，你不能因为这样而不睬她。你读过那么多书，应该懂得这些道理，不能没有礼貌。”
妈的去世，让我们无限的哀恸，唯一可以让我们感到稍微安慰的，是她去世前并没有多大的痛苦。妈的去世也充满了哀荣，她一生几乎都是在为别人服务，为她丈夫，儿子，还有很多很多亲友。也因为这样，她生前帮助，照顾，关怀和爱过的所有人，都会永远记得她和哀悼她，直到永远。
还记得就在2月15日，年初一的前2天，妈还帮我染了一头深紫色的头发，稍后又为她自己染了。我看到后问她“咦，妈妈，你也染和我一样颜色噢？”妈笑着对我说“这样人家才知道我们是两母子。”如今，这一切都已经成为过去，而妈也走了。不过，有一件事实却永远不会改变，我们永远是两母子。
回到2月25日5点多，妈刚去世不久，我把头依偎在妈还温暖怀里，记忆把我带回到小时候，我看电视时总是喜欢把头依偎在妈的怀里。在感受着妈最后一刻的温暖时，我对妈说了一句话，我就以这一句话做为这篇哀悼词的终结：
“妈，谢谢你照顾了我们那么多年，为我们带来了那么多年的幸福和温馨。妈，你可以放心的离开，我们都大了，可以自己照顾自己了，从此以后，你不需要在为任何人操心了。不管你以后在哪里，我们都会永远怀念你，爱你，妈，我爱你。”
我妈妈是一位尽责的母亲，全职的家庭主妇。她总是在她能力范围内对我们照料周全。她几乎豪无例外的每天早上7，8点就起床，然后就去买菜，做饭，洗衣服，整理衣橱。这些工作看起来似乎都很琐碎，但是做起来并不容易。妈过世后我开始为我自己整理衣橱，发现这是一件烦闷的工作，我在想，即使是整理自己的衣服，也
会觉得烦闷，我妈可以几十年如一日的为我们做家务，为我们学业，事业甚至爱情操心，无怨无悔，完全出自她对我们爱心和责任感。稍微缺乏爱心和责任感，是做不来的。
我妈是一位聪明和敏感的人，对人情世故有相当深入的了解。在这一点上，我觉得我多少受了她的影响。我不开心或生气时，她往往可以看得出来，然后就问我，“孩子，发生什么事了，为什么你好像有点不高兴？”她总是可以从人家表面上的言谈猜测出别人想些什么，我从她那儿学到了很多宝贵的智慧。无论如何，敏锐的触觉也为她带来了烦恼和伤害。有时候她会考虑过多，有时也会因为过于敏感而变得多疑。
“你妈是一位好人。”很多亲友都感慨地对我们这么说。事实上也是如此。我妈生前曾经照顾和帮助过很多她并没有义务去照顾和帮助的人。虽然，有时候是出于无奈，而她也常会对我抱怨说她总是需要料理太多的人，然而，这一切都止于抱怨而已。在行动上她还是继续为他们提供帮助。我妈也是一位恩怨分明的人。记得有一次她和我其中一位姑姑产生一些误会，有一段日子没讲话。有一次姑姑来我家，我忘了和她打招呼。过后妈就对我说，“腾，我和你姑姑口角是我们的事情，你不能因为这样而不睬她。你读过那么多书，应该懂得这些道理，不能没有礼貌。”
妈的去世，让我们无限的哀恸，唯一可以让我们感到稍微安慰的，是她去世前并没有多大的痛苦。妈的去世也充满了哀荣，她一生几乎都是在为别人服务，为她丈夫，儿子，还有很多很多亲友。也因为这样，她生前帮助，照顾，关怀和爱过的所有人，都会永远记得她和哀悼她，直到永远。
还记得就在2月15日，年初一的前2天，妈还帮我染了一头深紫色的头发，稍后又为她自己染了。我看到后问她“咦，妈妈，你也染和我一样颜色噢？”妈笑着对我说“这样人家才知道我们是两母子。”如今，这一切都已经成为过去，而妈也走了。不过，有一件事实却永远不会改变，我们永远是两母子。
回到2月25日5点多，妈刚去世不久，我把头依偎在妈还温暖怀里，记忆把我带回到小时候，我看电视时总是喜欢把头依偎在妈的怀里。在感受着妈最后一刻的温暖时，我对妈说了一句话，我就以这一句话做为这篇哀悼词的终结：
“妈，谢谢你照顾了我们那么多年，为我们带来了那么多年的幸福和温馨。妈，你可以放心的离开，我们都大了，可以自己照顾自己了，从此以后，你不需要在为任何人操心了。不管你以后在哪里，我们都会永远怀念你，爱你，妈，我爱你。”
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Saturday, February 17, 2007
收拾记 ( I )
自从二月的第一个礼拜以来，我都在收拾我的东西。并不是纯粹为了过年，而是想重新整顿一下，让它更有次序，更容易翻找，毕竟我上一次整理东西已经是4-5年前的事情了---从这里你可以想象得到我的东西是多么的杂乱无章。
之前的整理都是以“次序”为主，也就是说把乱成一团的东西重新排好而已。而且有很多东西，都在“以后可能会用到”和“这些有纪念价值”的前提下被保留了下来，基本上之前几次整理东西只是纯粹的整理，丢掉的东西真的很少。这次除了整理，还有整顿。到目前为止，我丢掉或者送人的东西已经超过30公斤了。也就是说大约有四份之一的东西都被“裁减”了。
这次的整顿分三个阶段进行。第一个是我楼下的书橱和箱子，第二个是我楼上的书橱，光碟和玩具，对对，你没听错，是玩具，我小时候玩的玩具，这些玩具可都有超过十五年的历史了哦。第三个阶段是我的衣橱。
到目前为止，整顿的工作进行到第二阶段，我的希望是今天可以完成第二阶段。接着的第三阶段就等过了春节再整顿。
我觉得每一次的“整理工程”，都好像是乘坐时光机回到过去一样。这是因为你在整理时会接触到很多东西，这些东西曾经陪你走过你人生的一段路程，在你心中留下了印记。比如，照片，小学用的铅笔盒，纪念册，卡片，情书，礼物，笔记等等。所以我每次整理东西都很费时，整理本身并不费时，而是接触到的东西一直在让我禁不住回忆过去，这才是整理东西会费时的原因所在。也因为这样，之前每一件因为“有纪念价值”而最后被保留的东西都标志着一段放不下，不愿意放下或觉得值得留下的回忆。
过去的我，总是抱着这些东西，不舍得丢。但是这一次，我把它们大多数都丢了，我尝试问我自己，我以后会把这些东西拿来看的机会到底有多大呢？结果很多东西都“不堪一问”，都被丢进垃圾桶里去了。有时候觉得很好笑，再感性的东西，也经不起理性的一问。我想这也是为什么很多人都很难维持理性，因为人的心灵都很脆弱，经不起理性的考问。
我们常会听到有人说类似“活在当前，珍惜眼前”的话。我想，像我这样不舍得丢东西的人很多，如果我们面对过去的“物”也总是犹豫不决，难分难舍，那么当我们要面对深埋在心里的回忆，恐怕就更心猿意马了。而如果我们不肯让过去沉淀，我们又如何可以“活在当前，珍惜眼前”呢？
“活在当前，珍惜眼前”说起来容易，然而有几个人可以做到呢？看来，这是一个值得我们用一辈子去学习的东西。
之前的整理都是以“次序”为主，也就是说把乱成一团的东西重新排好而已。而且有很多东西，都在“以后可能会用到”和“这些有纪念价值”的前提下被保留了下来，基本上之前几次整理东西只是纯粹的整理，丢掉的东西真的很少。这次除了整理，还有整顿。到目前为止，我丢掉或者送人的东西已经超过30公斤了。也就是说大约有四份之一的东西都被“裁减”了。
这次的整顿分三个阶段进行。第一个是我楼下的书橱和箱子，第二个是我楼上的书橱，光碟和玩具，对对，你没听错，是玩具，我小时候玩的玩具，这些玩具可都有超过十五年的历史了哦。第三个阶段是我的衣橱。
到目前为止，整顿的工作进行到第二阶段，我的希望是今天可以完成第二阶段。接着的第三阶段就等过了春节再整顿。
我觉得每一次的“整理工程”，都好像是乘坐时光机回到过去一样。这是因为你在整理时会接触到很多东西，这些东西曾经陪你走过你人生的一段路程，在你心中留下了印记。比如，照片，小学用的铅笔盒，纪念册，卡片，情书，礼物，笔记等等。所以我每次整理东西都很费时，整理本身并不费时，而是接触到的东西一直在让我禁不住回忆过去，这才是整理东西会费时的原因所在。也因为这样，之前每一件因为“有纪念价值”而最后被保留的东西都标志着一段放不下，不愿意放下或觉得值得留下的回忆。
过去的我，总是抱着这些东西，不舍得丢。但是这一次，我把它们大多数都丢了，我尝试问我自己，我以后会把这些东西拿来看的机会到底有多大呢？结果很多东西都“不堪一问”，都被丢进垃圾桶里去了。有时候觉得很好笑，再感性的东西，也经不起理性的一问。我想这也是为什么很多人都很难维持理性，因为人的心灵都很脆弱，经不起理性的考问。
我们常会听到有人说类似“活在当前，珍惜眼前”的话。我想，像我这样不舍得丢东西的人很多，如果我们面对过去的“物”也总是犹豫不决，难分难舍，那么当我们要面对深埋在心里的回忆，恐怕就更心猿意马了。而如果我们不肯让过去沉淀，我们又如何可以“活在当前，珍惜眼前”呢？
“活在当前，珍惜眼前”说起来容易，然而有几个人可以做到呢？看来，这是一个值得我们用一辈子去学习的东西。
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Thought of the week
Never in the history of mankind had we been exposed to so much idiocy. This happens not because the number of cretin has increased but the means by which one could show his or her stupidity have multiplied, thanks to a burgeoning information industry.
Thursday, February 08, 2007
The Beginning
一直到两个礼拜前，我都没有开设自己部落格的打算。原因很简单，因为开了一个后又不知道要写些什么。我固然有很多自己的想法，但是要我随便找一个课题，然后唏哩哗啦的长篇大论，我又似乎做不到，盖要把凌乱的思想整顿一般然后再把它表达出来是蛮费时和麻烦的。
诚然，我们生活在一个动荡的年代里，世界几乎天天都在改变，有时候你还来不及适应，新的改变又出现了。就在10多年前，人们还在感叹缺乏资讯，但是在今天这个资讯时代，人们还是在感叹，不同的是今天人们感叹的是资讯实在太多了，这里还没消化完，新的资讯又出来了。
在这种大前提下，我想每一个人的头脑里都会有千头万绪。而我对我自己的生活和周遭的环境也是有很多的感想和体验。然而，我就像其他人一样，内心里住着一只懒惰精，而他总是在怂恿我们“朝抵抗力最小的路走”。所以我一直在“麻烦”，“费时”和“没时间”等借口的掩护下选择了什么都不做。
然而，就在一个多礼拜前，我做了另一个选择。我决定了我要自己控制自己，而不是由懒惰精来控制我。我要一步一步的从我内心里的那只懒惰精夺回属于我的控制权。同时，我觉得把自己的思想写出来可以让自己更了解自己的想法，更近一步的思考和消化得到的所有资讯，也可以让自己更善于表达自己。
因此，我设立自己的部落格，基本上有三个目的：
1）培养自律能力和意志力。
2）整顿自己的想法和感想，培养自己写作和表达能力。
3）赞扬，推崇和分享我认为好的和对的事情和东西。
PS:英文还是中文？
我之前有想过，我应该用英文还是中文呢。后来我决定了我会交替的用两种语言。
诚然，我们生活在一个动荡的年代里，世界几乎天天都在改变，有时候你还来不及适应，新的改变又出现了。就在10多年前，人们还在感叹缺乏资讯，但是在今天这个资讯时代，人们还是在感叹，不同的是今天人们感叹的是资讯实在太多了，这里还没消化完，新的资讯又出来了。
在这种大前提下，我想每一个人的头脑里都会有千头万绪。而我对我自己的生活和周遭的环境也是有很多的感想和体验。然而，我就像其他人一样，内心里住着一只懒惰精，而他总是在怂恿我们“朝抵抗力最小的路走”。所以我一直在“麻烦”，“费时”和“没时间”等借口的掩护下选择了什么都不做。
然而，就在一个多礼拜前，我做了另一个选择。我决定了我要自己控制自己，而不是由懒惰精来控制我。我要一步一步的从我内心里的那只懒惰精夺回属于我的控制权。同时，我觉得把自己的思想写出来可以让自己更了解自己的想法，更近一步的思考和消化得到的所有资讯，也可以让自己更善于表达自己。
因此，我设立自己的部落格，基本上有三个目的：
1）培养自律能力和意志力。
2）整顿自己的想法和感想，培养自己写作和表达能力。
3）赞扬，推崇和分享我认为好的和对的事情和东西。
PS:英文还是中文？
我之前有想过，我应该用英文还是中文呢。后来我决定了我会交替的用两种语言。
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)